Rural Schools (Closure)
The final item is a members' business debate on motion S3M-1065, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the proposed closure of rural schools. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that small rural schools can provide a learning environment that promotes confidence, responsible citizenship and the opportunity to contribute effectively, as well as a positive educational and social experience for children; believes that small rural schools can effectively deliver the Curriculum for Excellence; recognises the wider role that local primary schools play within rural communities; notes that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning intends to legislate to introduce a presumption against the closure of rural schools, and commends the local parents, pupils, teachers and members of the community who are making a positive case to keep open Sorn, Littlemill, St Xavier's and Crossroads primary schools following the publication of SNP-led East Ayrshire Council's closure proposals.
I am pleased to have secured the debate, which gives us the chance to highlight an issue that is relevant not only to my local area but more widely—perhaps that is particularly the case after a recent ministerial intervention to save a two-pupil school.
I thank the parents, the pupils and the local communities who have campaigned to keep open Littlemill, Crossroads, Sorn and St Xavier's primary schools. A large number of campaigners are in the public gallery to hear the debate.
In the seven minutes that are available to me, I do not have enough time to go into all the details of why the proposals that have been made do not stack up. However, I will give a simple summary of the situation.
East Ayrshire Council has earmarked four small rural schools for closure. The education of 191 pupils hangs in the balance. Sorn primary school and Littlemill primary school are at the heart of their villages—I have heard that phrase repeated many times in meetings and have seen it many times in letters to me. Crossroads primary school and St Xavier's primary school, which serve wider rural communities, are focal points for many rural families. All the schools that are threatened with closure have received strong support from their local communities. There were many more than 2,000 individual responses to the consultation. Halls have been packed for public meetings, there have been demonstrations and there are thousands of signatures on petitions. All the four schools are seen by their local communities as being essential in ensuring that families can continue to live in the local villages and the surrounding rural areas.
Why have closure plans been made? East Ayrshire Council has argued that cost is not the issue; it says that the plans were produced for educational reasons. In the consultation document, the council says that small schools cannot deliver the curriculum for excellence; that pupils from small schools have more difficulties transferring to secondary schools; that composite classes are a problem; and that it is more difficult to recruit and retain staff for rural schools. However, those arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.
Let us start with the curriculum for excellence. In answer to questions that I have asked in the Parliament, the Minister for Schools and Skills has made it clear that the size of a school is not relevant to delivering the curriculum for excellence. Attainment levels in the four schools in East Ayrshire back that up.
On composite classes, East Ayrshire Council's own guidance to parents makes it clear that pupils in composite classes are not disadvantaged.
On the claim that rural pupils do not transfer successfully to secondary schools, we simply have to consider the results that pupils from the threatened schools have achieved. In addition, robust research evidence that completely rebuts the council's claim is available.
On the problems with recruiting staff to small rural schools, neither the council nor ministers have been able to provide me with any evidence that makes the claims that have been made stack up.
Parents are not convinced that education is the issue, and they are angry at the implication that they are putting their children's social skills at risk by having them educated in small schools. Time after time, pupils from such schools have told me about their sporting, music and artistic after-school activities. Parents are actively involved in fundraising and supporting extracurricular activities, and many pupils and parents have pointed out how important that is for rural children, who simply do not have the opportunity to cross the road to play with a friend. Far from missing out on opportunities to play for the school, which the council's consultation document suggests happens, every child in a small school is given the chance to be a valued member of the school community. Indeed, I have heard of numerous examples of pupils with special needs being transferred to smaller schools because of the opportunities that such environments can offer.
What are the council's other arguments? Let us consider the sums. They do not add up either. The supposed financial savings have been meticulously scrutinised by local campaigners and the Scottish rural schools network, and a range of inaccuracies have been uncovered. Inaccuracies have been uncovered in the costings for maintaining the schools, in the additional transport costs, and in the description of the impact that the closures would have on East Ayrshire Council's grant-aided expenditure funding relief for small schools. However, not everything has been negative. The action groups have suggested positive and workable options that would retain the schools for the future benefit of the pupils and the local communities, and East Ayrshire Council's Labour group has proposed an option that would provide significant capital investment in the coming years to retain all four schools.
I have discussed local issues, but what about the wider context? East Ayrshire Council's plans are diametrically opposite to the Scottish Government's policy on rural schools. I understand that even a legislative presumption against the closure of rural schools would not mean that no rural school would ever close, but it would mean that any council that proposed a closure would have to make a strong case for it. I had to consider such cases when I was the Minister for Education and Young People, and had to take account of whether councils had considered all the educational issues and all possible options. It is clear to me and to the campaigners that East Ayrshire Council has not made any educational case, any wider social case or a robust financial case for the closures.
Thanks to pressure from campaigners, the council has been forced to reverse its previous decision and allow the campaigners to address the council's cabinet. That is a welcome step. However, the council must do more. Parents have pressed the council for this commitment: every councillor who represents an area that includes one of the schools should have the chance to vote in the final decision. It should not just be cabinet members who have that chance.
I would argue that the council should go further. It should immediately shelve the current plans; it should take no decision to close the schools in advance of the Government introducing its legislation based on the presumption against the closure of rural schools; and it should examine the alternative proposals presented by the parents and by the Labour group on the council.
As I said at the outset, this might seem like a local issue, but it has wider significance. The minister has the opportunity this evening to reassure my constituents and rural communities across Scotland of a genuine belief in the value of rural schools; she has the opportunity to tell the chamber when the necessary legislation on the presumption against closure will be introduced; and she has the opportunity to say to her SNP colleagues in East Ayrshire Council that they should scrap their plans and present a new set of plans that will secure rural education in East Ayrshire for future generations. [Applause.]
I know that it can be tempting to applaud, but during our proceedings we do not allow interventions or applause from the public gallery. I would be glad if people in the public gallery could note that.
It is important to understand the background against which the East Ayrshire consultation arose. Like many other local authorities in Scotland, East Ayrshire Council has faced falling school rolls for many years. The frightening reality is that East Ayrshire has 15,000 desks but just over 9,000 pupils. Despite that, the Labour administration under Councillor Tommy Farrell ordered a new school, much larger than necessary, to be built at Galston. Clearly, Labour's intention was to close nearby Crossroads primary school in order to fill up the new Galston primary. On top of all that, the condition of our schools in East Ayrshire was allowed to deteriorate over many years. We now understand that the estimated cost of bringing the schools up to an acceptable standard is £100 million.
When we consider the hopes for and expectations of the curriculum for excellence, and the challenge of delivering a modern learning and teaching environment for our children, it is incumbent on any new council administration to examine the hand that it has been dealt and to consult parents and communities on the best way forward. That does not warrant an attack on the council or personal attacks on officers who are charged with the duty of trying to present and explain all the options to the public. The new council and the officers should be commended for facing up to the difficult challenges left behind by the previous administration.
What is remarkably different about this consultation is the decision by the SNP to include the status quo as an outcome and to allow reasoned argument in favour of that option to be developed and presented. That is not something that parents got from Labour in the past. Only last week in this chamber, we were reminded by a former Labour education minister that people felt that previous school consultations were fixed, that decisions had already been made and that the consultation process was a sham. That was the reality under Labour, and its track record of allowing 32 schools to close the length and breadth of Scotland from 2001 to 2003 is testament to that. Where was Labour's commitment to rural schools then?
Will the member take an intervention?
No. Cathy Jamieson has had seven minutes, and I have only four.
Is it not amazing what an election defeat can do—especially when it presents an opening for blatant political opportunism?
I understand that more than 2,000 submissions have been made during the consultation process. The council has agreed to extend the timescale to 19 March, which will allow more time for detailed examination of the various cases being made. Again, that is an indication that East Ayrshire Council takes seriously the material being presented and that this consultation is no sham exercise.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. Rhona Brankin's party has had seven minutes. I have only four. Sorry.
Oh, so you can have—
Order.
For the first time ever, parents will be able to state their case in front of the decision makers. Many members of the parents groups are in the public gallery, and I welcome them to the Scottish Parliament. I have been impressed with the cases that have been presented to me, which contained detailed analysis that addressed all the issues and was thorough and considered.
The ultimate question that elected members face is whether new schools, with their modern learning and teaching environments, offer better opportunities for young children to develop into the confident and successful learners that we all hope they will become. Perhaps, as the parents strongly argue, the current schools still have the edge over anything else on offer. The new administration in East Ayrshire has a difficult task on its hands, but members can rest assured that it has the best interests of the kids in mind. I am confident that, taking into account all of the pressures that it faces, it will make the right decisions when the time comes.
I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on securing the debate, which is on an important subject for her constituents in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, and I commend her opening remarks. My colleague John Scott, who asked me to pass on his apologies tonight, has constituents who have children at Crossroads primary school, and other members' constituents are, I believe, affected by the issue. I do not represent East Ayrshire, so I do not want to address—nor do I have a detailed knowledge of—the circumstances there. However, I will talk about the issue in a slightly wider context, because this is a problem not just in East Ayrshire, but throughout Scotland.
In recent weeks and months, I have been contacted by parents from all different parts of Scotland who face similar pressures to the ones that are faced in Cathy Jamieson's constituency. For example, I have been contacted by parents of children at Corrie primary school on Arran in North Ayrshire and at Roy Bridge primary school in the Highlands; and, indeed, in the Angus Council area, I have, over the years, spoken to and helped parents of children at Kilry school, Eassie school and Stracathro school. Arbirlot school, which is an excellent local primary in Angus, was famously saved after parents fought a vigorous campaign. That led directly to the formation of the Scottish rural schools network, which is a body that campaigns nationally to protect rural schools. It is only appropriate to pay tribute to the work that is done by Sandy Longmuir and Anne Marie Sim, who head that organisation very effectively.
Notwithstanding some of what we have just heard, I do not believe that this is a party-political issue, because councils throughout Scotland of all different political complexions face many of the same challenges. All parties in council administrations have, at one time or another, faced the same problem. I agree with a lot of what Cathy Jamieson said about the importance of rural schools. They are important educationally, because—as we know—youngsters who attend a small rural school often get better results, whether at secondary school or when they go on to university, than do those who attend a larger school.
All too often, when a case is made for closure, the impressive educational arguments that can be made for small schools are forgotten about. That is not the only reason why rural schools are important; they are also a vital part of rural communities. Over the years, many rural areas have lost local services—whether it be the filling station or the local shop; or perhaps the post office has gone or is under threat—but the rural school remains as a focus of local community life. When a school closes, often it takes the heart out of the community. The school building is not just there to educate youngsters; it is used outwith school hours as a focus for community life. When the school closes, young families are no longer prepared to go and live in the area, and young families who are already there move away to be closer to where the schools are.
The future of rural schools raises wider issues than simply the educational ones. Members might be aware that I have a proposal for a member's bill to fulfil a manifesto commitment of the Scottish Conservatives to bring in a presumption against the closure of rural schools. It will deal with improving the consultation that councils have to go through. I was very interested to hear what Cathy Jamieson said about the East Ayrshire situation, in which there are problems with the quality of the consultation that has been issued—that is reflected throughout Scotland.
We need to consider the circumstances in which the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning can step in and effectively overturn the decisions taken by local councils, and we need to examine how we tie the issues in with additional funding for rural schools through local government.
I am happy to work with Fiona Hyslop and the SNP Government on the matter. I met the cabinet secretary to discuss a way forward and I hope that we will make the necessary changes in the law so that the situation that Cathy Jamieson outlined is not repeated.
I welcome the debate and I am delighted to take part in it. I thank Cathy Jamieson for bringing it to Parliament.
Some years ago, in another world, when I was on the Highland Council with my colleague Jamie Stone, we often had to consider the possible closure of some of our small rural schools. Heated debates on the subject are nothing new. At that time, the debates were heated and sometimes emotional. Arguments were made by those who wished to retain their local schools, and everybody wanted to do that. Nobody wants rural schools to close. Consultation of parents and the community usually met with a hostile reception.
Everyone knows that school closures are never popular. It is felt that the local school is at the heart of the rural community and it means so much in the area. Its closure and the loss of its staff will always appear to be detrimental to the vibrancy and wellbeing of fragile rural areas. Members will appreciate that the school is not there just to provide education to the children of the community: nursery classes use schools; youth groups and clubs meet there, as do many other local groups, such as the Scottish Women's Rural Institutes and local drama groups. Church services are held in what people take to be just school buildings. They have many uses.
I tend to agree that there should be a presumption against school closures until a full and thorough consultation has taken place, but I have found that when a reasonable and justifiable case is made to the affected community and all the facts are explained in clear detail, there is more likely to be general acceptance of the concept of closure. It is important that all those who are consulted on closure proposals feel that they have been listened to and that there has been a response to their judgments.
The local authorities do an excellent job with the resources that are available to them, particularly given the ever-increasing demand for an extended and expanded curriculum—every year, the curriculum seems to expand and demand more resources. However, difficult decisions have to be taken and, on occasion, they can prove to be extremely unpopular.
We should consider allowing local authorities and their elected members to manage their respective school estates. After all, they are best placed to make the appropriate decisions in their locality because they are at the coalface, as it were. We should let them get on with the business of managing their local school estate and matters that contribute to the education of our young children.
I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on bringing the matter to the chamber for debate. As we have heard from others, the issue goes far further than Ayrshire. I have had the privilege of being invited to and visiting small rural schools the length and breadth of Scotland. One thing that they all share is the high quality of the education that the children in them receive. I should also mention the extraordinary dedication of the staff and the involvement of parents in those schools.
I recall research that was done on Orkney about 30 or 40 years ago. I visited a school there that had a composite class for a couple of years. The research showed that Orkney, which has a record number of small schools—or it did at that time—produced more professors than any other area of Scotland. That is testament to the small-school provision in Orkney.
I echo Murdo Fraser's sentiments. Almost everything he said could have been in my speech. If we are to have a rural policy in this country, that policy should include a presumption against the closure of rural schools. The shop goes, the post office goes, the school goes and all that is left is a satellite village where people do nothing but live and commute to the nearest town or city. We must stop that degradation of rural Scotland. Closure of rural schools is one of the many things that affects the quality of life in rural areas.
Murdo Fraser will be delighted to know that I am an enthusiastic supporter of his proposed bill on the introduction of a presumption against closure of rural schools. It would not mean that no rural schools would ever be closed, but the threats to rural Scotland are such that I very much hope that his bill makes it to Parliament and is passed. It is long past the time when such a bill should have progressed to that point.
I close by reflecting on the fact that the Barnett formula—much as people hate it and denigrate it—was originally predicated on the extra support that Scotland needs to provide services of all kinds, including education, in rural areas. If we allow too many rural schools to be closed, a re-evaluation of the Barnett formula could—in fact, should—result in our getting less money. I am sure that we do not want that. That is a small warning.
Like others, I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on securing the debate. I also welcome the parents, pupils and teachers from Ayrshire who have come to hear it.
I do not believe that schools should never be closed—that they should just go on for ever—and I do not think that any other member who has contributed to the debate does either. However, I recognise the pain that can be caused by school closures; therefore, they should take place only when there really is no other choice and when the detrimental effect on our children and local communities can be reduced to its least impact.
That does not seem to be the situation in the Ayrshire schools that Cathy Jamieson has brought to our attention, which clearly have a great deal to offer their pupils. In fact, as we have seen from the example in Moray, which was referred to earlier, it may be possible to offer school-based education where there are only two pupils. I say "may" because, to be honest, I have some reservations about that situation in terms of the wider educational benefits for such a small number of pupils. However, the pupils in Ayrshire seem to have widespread support from their parents, teachers and local communities. Furthermore, we have heard from Cathy Jamieson that their education is of a high standard and that their schools contribute to their local communities. So why are they threatened with closure? Are the reasons really just financial?
Sandy Longmuir of the Scottish Rural Schools Network, who has already been mentioned, suggests that the previous funding system for local government, grant-aided expenditure, provided a financial disincentive for most authorities to close rural schools with fewer than 70 pupils. With the removal of GAE and the introduction of a new local government financial settlement, has the Scottish Government perhaps inadvertently removed that disincentive? I hope that the minister will respond to that point in her reply.
I offer my full support to the families who are here this evening. I hear from Cathy Jamieson and others about the advantages that local schools can provide in rural communities—they are often the centre of those communities. John Farquhar Munro also referred to the many ways in which the schools are used. However, around the country a number of families face the possible closure of their schools. I understand the uncertainties that are caused by this year's so-called historic agreement with local authorities, which might be the catalyst for many of the proposed closures, and I am sure that the minister understands the heartache that such proposals cause to all those who are involved. I hope that, this evening, she will tell us how her Government intends to respond to the demands for local schools to stay open, how it will ensure that the communities' voices are heard and that there is a presumption against closure. That will resolve the damaging situations hanging over those communities.
I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on securing this important debate. I am sure that she will forgive me for focusing most of my contribution on North Ayrshire and Corrie primary school.
Mr Gibson might be coming to this, but I hope that he will acknowledge that I have signed his motion and have taken the issue up with some of my Labour colleagues on North Ayrshire Council; I have not supported the council's decision to propose the closure.
I am happy to acknowledge that. I would have got to it in a moment; Cathy Jamieson has jumped a wee bit ahead of me.
I have long had an interest in the rural schools issue. In March 1998, when I was a Glasgow councillor, I moved a resolution at the SNP's Stirling national council meeting that no rural schools should be closed unless for strictly educational reasons. So I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Fiona Hyslop, on 11 October last year, wrote a detailed letter to all local authority education conveners, directors of education and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities education convener, stating:
"This letter sets out the Scottish Government's position on the handling meantime of school closure proposals—whether or not they require Ministerial consent—in advance of our consulting on proposals for a legislative presumption against the closure of rural schools."
The letter continues:
"You will be aware of our manifesto commitment to introduce a legislative presumption against the closure of rural schools."
I come to Corrie primary school. A formal consultation began in January with a view to closing Corrie primary school, as well as its adjacent nursery, in the summer. The nursery is the only purpose-built nursery on Arran. Corrie primary school is a high-performing school, with 100 per cent attendance levels and placing requests from outwith its catchment. In the past few months, it has had an excellent Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education report. The school is 120 years old and central to the heart of the local community, and I acknowledge what John Farquhar Munro said on that issue. The commitment of the parents, staff and pupils is such that together they raised £11,000 to build and install an adventure playground that opened on 20 August 2007.
I and members of all parties believe that the decision to open a consultation was based on erroneous information that grossly overstated the capacity of Corrie primary school while underestimating pupil numbers. The closure of the school would have a devastating impact on the pupils, the parents and staff, and on the viability of the village of Corrie and its ability to attract young families with children. That is despite the fact that Arran Homes and the Housing Initiative for Arran Residents plan to build between 24 and 27 homes in Corrie and Glen Sannox during the next couple of years, including homes that will attract families and boost the local primary school's roll.
Of course, it should be noted that, across Scotland, 431 primary schools have rolls of 50 pupils or fewer, so there is great concern about what will happen in Corrie, in East Ayrshire, and elsewhere. It is important that we consider the issue throughout Scotland.
Should the outcome of the consultation process be that North Ayrshire Council agrees to close Corrie primary school, the consultation document will require, under the terms of the Education (Publication and Consultation etc) (Scotland) Regulations 1981, to be submitted to the Scottish Government for the consent of the Scottish ministers. I hope that in those circumstances ministers will ensure that Corrie primary does not close this summer or in the near future.
I, too, thank Cathy Jamieson for bringing this issue to the chamber for debate. I recognise the sincerity with which she states her case. Like John Farquhar Munro and other members, I will stravaig beyond Ayrshire, with Cathy Jamieson's forbearance.
Since the Parliament was established in 1999, we in the Highlands have been very fortunate, as there has been not one school closure in the area. However, John Farquhar Munro was right to recall the arguments that we used to have in the old days, when we were both councillors. I will summarise the situation thus: the former councillors who are now members of the Parliament were not always in agreement on the issue and, on occasion, nearly came to blows.
More recently, within the lifetime of the previous Highland Council, prior to last May's election, there were proposals to close not primary schools but nursery units in the Highland Council area. I will highlight the cases of two schools in my constituency, at Thrumster, south of Wick, and Keiss, north of Wick. In those communities and others in Caithness, Sutherland and the Highlands as a whole there was a well-run campaign to see off the proposals. In fairness to the councillors, they changed their minds and the proposals were taken off the agenda.
However, circumstances have now changed somewhat. Highland Council finds itself in a fairly tight financial straitjacket and is having to implement a series of cuts and efficiency savings. Parents at Thrumster primary school are alarmed by the proposal to delete around £350,000 from the pre-school budget—the budget that impinges on nursery provision. Thrumster mums and dads are concerned that the proposal to close the nursery unit at the school may be revived. They may be jumping at shadows, but I am duty bound to express their fears. They say that they are worried that the closure of the unit may be back on the agenda. If the nursery unit is closed, will the primary school not also be undermined? The shutting of nursery units is undesirable generally, but in the case of Thrumster it makes no sense, as it would mean children having to get their nursery education in Wick and being separated from their siblings in primaries 1, 2 or 3.
There may not be a problem, but there may be. I am not trying to cry wolf, but I want to put the issue on ministers' radar. If the situation is bad this year, what will it be like next year? I have every sympathy for the councillors who have been placed in this predicament but, like every other constituency member, I must try to protect nursery provision in rural parts of Scotland. Other members have described eloquently how such provision underpins the fabric of our communities. The issue that I have highlighted is a real worry to parents. I ask the minister to take the time to consider it and to look at what is happening. I will work with ministers on the issue as much as I can.
I thank Cathy Jamieson for initiating this important debate and thank all members who have spoken this evening. I, too, welcome those in the public gallery who have come to hear me emphasise the Government's support for rural schools and our commitment to safeguard them and the communities that they serve.
I should declare an interest. At one time, I was a school board chair. The neighbouring school was due to close, with the support of parents, who wanted their children to come to the school whose board I chaired. Although the other school was closed as a primary school, it was retained as a nursery school. Both schools are now outstanding successes. The case demonstrates that, when the local authority consults and engages with the community, as Jamie Stone described, lateral thinking can produce good solutions.
We whole-heartedly agree with the assertion in the motion that rural schools can provide educational and social benefits to pupils. We also believe that there is no reason why small schools cannot deliver the curriculum for excellence, which will help children and young people to develop as successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors. We want to provide a rich and full curriculum that draws on best practice from across the country and, indeed, across the world. The issue is not the size or location of a school or how it is organised.
We also recognise how important a rural school can be as a hub for community activities. There is no doubt that rural schools can play a key role in ensuring that small communities remain viable. Access to local services is vital for all, but for many small, fragile, rural communities the school may be the key to their thriving and being sustainable. I agree with John Farquhar Munro that the closure of schools is an emotional issue.
On the motion's reference to East Ayrshire Council's proposals, Ms Jamieson knows that it would be inappropriate for me to comment, given the potential for cases to be referred to ministers. The same applies to the case that Mr Gibson mentioned. However, I am aware that East Ayrshire Council's consultation is now closed and that the council will consider its decision on the future of the schools very soon. I understand that the council will make its decision on 9 March rather than on the earlier date that was proposed. The council has lengthened the time so that it can consider carefully the volume of responses that it has received.
As Willie Coffey reminded us, the closure proposals were initiated under the previous Labour council. In addition, the council is acting under guidance that was introduced by the then Minister for Education and Young People, Peter Peacock. As Mr Gibson said, that guidance has been reinforced by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning.
On the general point, I welcome the support for rural schools that members have expressed but I find it surprising to hear such support coming from some quarters, given the previous Government's record. For example, in the course of the previous two parliamentary sessions, the number of primary schools in Scotland dropped by 125. More than 50 primary schools were closed in rural areas, and of the 19 cases that were referred to ministers, consent was granted in every case.
By contrast, in the short life of this Government, we have taken action to protect rural schools and to improve the process for all closures. As I said, when the cabinet secretary wrote to all authorities in October, she reminded them of good practice and stressed the importance of genuine consultation and of explaining the reasons for proposing a school's closure.
Does the minister agree that, when the cabinet secretary wrote to education authorities in October, she reissued the guidance that Peter Peacock had previously issued?
That is precisely what I said.
As ministers, we have dealt with three cases that have been referred to us since we took office. In each case, after close examination, we concluded that consent should be refused. For two of the proposals, that was because we considered that the processes were flawed. In the other case, it was primarily because HMIE did not support the council's educational case for closure. It is worth pausing to note that those were the first-ever cases in which ministers had refused consent. That is not to say that there will not be cases in future in which closure is the correct decision.
In all the recent cases, a consideration that shaped our thinking was how to meet our commitment to introduce a presumption against the closure of rural schools and to tighten the regulations on all school closures. We intend to publish proposals for consultation at the end of March. Although I cannot comment on the specifics of the proposals, I can say that they will be detailed, comprehensive and the result of much deliberation and consideration.
I welcome the support that Cathy Jamieson is now expressing for safeguarding rural schools. In October, she observed in the Carrick Gazette:
"Rural primary schools are a vital part of any thriving community and we must be imaginative about the way we work in order to secure their future."
I agree with that and hope that when the time comes, she will support our proposals.
I also welcome Murdo Fraser's support for rural schools following the launch of his consultation. As he said, he has met the cabinet secretary, and I hope that we can work with him and his party to deliver for our rural schools and communities.
I welcome the support for rural schools and encourage everyone to examine and respond to our proposals, which will be published next month.
Meeting closed at 17:55.